Multiplayer: The best qualities of the old Infinity Engine games

[Drizan]

I have played every game that Black Isle (and later Obsidian) made and one of the major qualities that made Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale so great was that you could play the exact same game with real friends instead of NPCs. What good are huge worlds filled with complex characters if I can't share in the experience with my friends? That is a major problem I have with most RPGs now days is that they have taken away one of the best things about old RPGs (and even older pen and paper RPGs); multiplayer. I have spent more time than I care to admit playing through these games in single player, but what made them even better was the chance to play the game with my friends. They could join whenever they wanted, and control whoever they wanted. I just really hope that this game (which I have backed of course!) brings the option of multiplayer co-op like many classic RPGs.

[Luckmann]

As has been discussed time and time again; No, no, a thousand times no. Do not want. Do not care.

[evolvia]

same as below, please make only solo game.

 

No multi, no co-op

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...dunna need resources wasted on MP...give us a sparkilin' SP campaign...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[ogrezilla]

I have no problem with it. I likely won't use it, but I know it was popular in the older games. I have no idea how hard it would be to implement as far as taking up time and resources.

 

edit: apparently more than its worth. ok then.

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Ieo]

Redundant.

 

NO.

 

Dev has answered this (harms SP game structure).

 

and

 

So besides Bobby Null's post in this thread about the content limitations, there's also this RPGamer interview with Tim Cain, this week (I think it's supposed to be dated 26SEP2012, but there's no actual date on the article itself, which is lame):

 

MAC: Obsidian has been hit hard in the past by having games released before they seemed as polished as they needed to be technically. How does having crowd-funding over publisher-funding change the way you'll plan to tackle QA down the line?

 

TC: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game, and we can avoid the ones that add little to the game's content but a lot to its complexity. For example, we are not supporting consoles or multiplayer, both of which make the game far more complex and hard to debug. Instead, we are focusing on making the best single-player PC RPG we can make, and that focus is simplifying a lot of our choices.

 

/thread

 

KILL THIS THING WITH FIRE.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Would I like an Infinity Engine-style game, but designed from the ground-up for groups and multiplayer?

 

Yeah, that sounds like it could be great fun!

 

But that's not what this project is.

 

Do I want multiplayer tacked-on to an otherwise single-player, narrative experience?

 

No, not really.

[Hypevosa]

If the multiplayer for this game would be that hard, I could understand the concerns that the game might be ruined, but we aren't talking about hit boxes, tons of balancing, hit detection, or anything like that. This is not bioshock 2 where the multiplayer needs to take half the budget away. We're talking about what are essentially NPCs on each player's screen, that don't have an AI script to follow, but are just waiting for commands from someone else over the internet, and let your computer know the coordinates they are doing things at and what actions they're taking.

 

It shouldn't really detract from the game in any way, shape or form - only add to it in that you get to experience it with some friends.

 

Look at it this way, if they can put 100k towards multiplayer and it's the last stretch goal, would that really harm anyone?

 

Multiplayer in this case only really needs to be tacked on - any inclusion or special considerations would be extra compared to just having someone you enjoy around to experience it with you.

[Undecaf]

No for multiplayer of any kind anywhere. Their implementation is and was wasted potential for the single player experience.

[Crooked Bee]

No.

[Piccolo]

No.

 

I like games to either be exclusively singleplayer, or exclusively multiplayer. Not both.

[MReed]

For the OP -- there was already a poll / thread on this subject. The results were firmly opposed to multiplayer (58% opposed, 41% for). See http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60065-merged-co-op-multiplayer-as-some-potential-future-stretchgoal/.

 

Lock please...

[AuroraDragonKaya]

I just joined the forums (felt after funding, I should start putting my input in.) It's a little disappointing that there won't be multiplayer (I had fun playing Baldur's Gate with my boyfriend. I like bonding over games. ) But I still think the game is going to be amazing.

What surprises me is how vehemently opposed most people are. Why all the hate?

[Troller]

man when will you multiplayer people go away, this isn't your steam co op hurp achievement LOL omg type of game, this game is designed for a different type of nerd, nerds that don't play xbox with bros in frat parties, we are guys that are lone wolfes just keep to ourselves, many of us dont even have friends and hate people

[Ieo]

I just joined the forums (felt after funding, I should start putting my input in.) It's a little disappointing that there won't be multiplayer (I had fun playing Baldur's Gate with my boyfriend. I like bonding over games. ) But I still think the game is going to be amazing.

What surprises me is how vehemently opposed most people are. Why all the hate?

 

Read....

 

"Single-player gaming is our focus"

 

You get a straight dev answer as to why it's a bad idea for an SP game and then a published interview saying explicitly that it's a complication that adds no content value, ergo Obsidian isn't doing it (Tim Cain interview).

 

People who really want MP should start harrassing other game firms to make one, maybe on KS. PE isn't it.

 

P.S.: By Null's post, if we're talking about a totally tacked-on crappy MP module created after SP development, sure. OP here however wants MP at the expense of SP--MP was absolutely not the best quality of the IE games (I'm sure he never played PS:T), I mean, really?

[zlarm]

I'd like to see MP if they can fit it in. Even if it is 'bad quality' like the IE games that would be fine with me.

[AuroraDragonKaya]

I just joined the forums (felt after funding, I should start putting my input in.) It's a little disappointing that there won't be multiplayer (I had fun playing Baldur's Gate with my boyfriend. I like bonding over games. ) But I still think the game is going to be amazing.

What surprises me is how vehemently opposed most people are. Why all the hate?

 

Read....

 

"Single-player gaming is our focus"

 

You get a straight dev answer as to why it's a bad idea for an SP game and then a published interview saying explicitly that it's a complication that adds no content value, ergo Obsidian isn't doing it (Tim Cain interview).

 

People who really want MP should start harrassing other game firms to make one, maybe on KS. PE isn't it.

 

P.S.: By Null's post, if we're talking about a totally tacked-on crappy MP module created after SP development, sure. OP here however wants MP at the expense of SP--MP was absolutely not the best quality of the IE games (I'm sure he never played PS:T), I mean, really?

I definitely wouldn't want to focus on MP at the expense of SP. SP is clearly what this game is about, and in Baldurs Gate, it definitely felt tacked on: basically, going through the game with a PC party member instead of an NPC one. Which was perfectly fine to me. First and foremost, I like a good and immersive story, and that's why I'm excited about this game.

Either way, I do understand it isn't happening, and I actually am glad they know what would be too much for them. They're chosing the integrity of their vision, and kudos to them. The part that confuses me, as I said, is how aggressive some people are in their response. See below.

 

man when will you multiplayer people go away, this isn't your steam co op hurp achievement LOL omg type of game, this game is designed for a different type of nerd, nerds that don't play xbox with bros in frat parties, we are guys that are lone wolfes just keep to ourselves, many of us dont even have friends and hate people

See, this, this is exactly the type of hate I don't understand. Especially considering that the RPGs evolved out of a very social activity, even if its one that's most commonly played by geeky outcast types. When this comes out, half my tabletop gaming group will probably play it. Most of them have already played all the obsidian games already.

It's one thing to say "I'm not interested." Obviously not everyone is, (and it sounds as if its not getting implimented.)

It's another thing to call people who like it 'xbox bros in frat parties' and tell them to 'go away.'

The more so because... we're all funding this. People going away, even people who disagree with you, is bad for everyone!

 

/rant

[Wintersong]

they have taken away one of the best things about old RPGs (and even older pen and paper RPGs); multiplayer.

I don't remember Dark Sun games having multiplayer. Or Ravenloft games. Or Eye of the Beholder series. Wizardry? Nope. Dragonlance? Noooope. Many others? No.

 

If the decission was up to me: no even if that means not being able to create my own party (which I only used in ID, not in BG). As it's up to Obsidian, whatever they think it's best. As long as they don't.. er... streamline? dumb down? lower? the single player content for it.

[AuroraDragonKaya]

As long as they don't.. er... streamline? dumb down? lower? the single player content for it.

On that we're definitely agreed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Any feature I will never use is a wasted feature.

 

I think the last time I actively played mutliplayer was when I set up a LAN game of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri in 1999.

[Hypevosa]

For the OP -- there was already a poll / thread on this subject. The results were firmly opposed to multiplayer (58% opposed, 41% for). See http://forums.obsidi...e-stretchgoal/.

 

Lock please...

 

58% to 41 for is not firm opposition my friend - that still is very much just a divided community- and it especially doesn't represent the rest of the market that could potentially buy this game. Unless we're limiting this game to JUST the people who use the kickstarter, we can't ignore that having the option to play with friends will mean alot more sales, and, hopefully, alot more money for the NEXT game.

 

 

If only 58% of an otherwise notoriously ANTI-multiplayer community is all that was opposed? I'm honestly surprised it wasn't 80% with how phobic some CRPG fans are of multiplayer since it was crapily done in some more complex games. Bioshock 2 is usually the best example, but let's be honest... this is nowhere near as complicated as it was for bioshock 2.

[Volourn]

They said no already so no is no. That said, they could change their mind at a later date.

 

Anyways, personally, I don't need MP for this game. Coop MP wouldn't be a bad addition for those who wnated and comapritvely spekaing in grand scheme of things it's likely not the hardest thing to do. I doubt BIO wasted a lot of time doing MP for BG series.

[Hypevosa]

Has anyone been proposing MP that's not the co-op MP from baldur's gate? o.O

[Ozida]

As an option, sure it would be nice. But God forbids if you must play it to achieve something in the game, and if it takes devs time/ effort from SP content.

[AzureWatcher]

The ability to play games with my out-of-state friends is never a bad thing.